Re: [RFC] is_literal()

On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 20:06, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > This seems very similar to the taint extension Hi Ben, Yes, it is similar; I hope I've covered the differences under the "Taint Checking" heading (please let me know if that could be improved). https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_literal#taint_checking As to the name, it's to work alongside functions such as is_int(), is_string(), etc - is that a good enough reason? Craig On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 20:06, Ben Ramsey <ben@benramsey.com> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2020, at 14:13, Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I've written up my suggestion for a is_literal() function: > > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/is_literal > > > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > > > Craig > > > This seems very similar to the taint extension. How does it differ from > ext-taint, and have you considered working together with ext-taint? > > https://www.php.net/manual/en/intro.taint.php > > The name is_literal() is too ambiguous to me. As Dan suggested, the RFC > should define what a literal is. > > Cheers, > Ben > >